Yeah, but I don't make none of that stuff. I just like to see the beauty in creation. I don't lose sleep over how an atom works or why the sky is blue. I just think it's beautiful how it all meshes together in perfect harmony. That is until man jumps in and tries to make it better...lol

Aren't you thankful for people who do learn about those things though? You would be dead right now if someone hadn't thought it useful to learn about the human heart and how to do a triple bypass on it. How beautiful is a clogged artery? Aren't you glad that a man was able to jump in and make that better?

it's a wonder the human race ever lived however million years that they claim without all those genius scientists to keep them alive and going. How on earth did they survive without knowing the molecular structure of water?

Not knocking them, just wondering how we survived so long without them.

it's a wonder the human race ever lived however million years that they claim without all those genius scientists to keep them alive and going. How on earth did they survive without knowing the molecular structure of water?Not knocking them, just wondering how we survived so long without them.

Yeah because you know.. early civilizations didn't invent wheels, or learn to bake bread, or lay any of the building blocks for science that we have today. They always had life spans of 70+ years and their maternal and infant mortality rates were pretty much 0.

Oh. Wait.

Early humans may not have known the molecular structure for water, but they did question their surroundings, they explored, and experimented. And as knowledge became available, mysticism took a backseat. At one point, humans believed that lightening striking the ground had been thrown down as a curse from Zeus.

Eventually, however, we learned what lightening really was and we threw out the silly belief that it was Zeus throwing it at us.

Over the course of history, natural events have been attributed to 'super natural' phenomenon. As science advances, humans discover the true cause for the natural event, and the super natural belief is thrown to the wayside.

cool. You'd think, though, that through millions of evolution that the human race would somehow mutate a gene that would produce a race that would have a longer than 70 year life span. I mean isn't "survival" the goal?

cool. You'd think, though, that through millions of evolution that the human race would somehow mutate a gene that would produce a race that would have a longer than 70 year life span. I mean isn't "survival" the goal?

Well considering the maximum life span for a human used to be early 30s, I think 70 is pretty impressive. Evolution doesn't take place overnight.

<quoted text>No Watchman, the goal is to erase God from the equation completely, then atheist's can get on with their lives.....oh wait a minute, if there is no God, what would an atheist have to talk about??Who could they stand up to then? Good Lord, with out faith, there would be no atheists!:)

Atheists talk about plenty of things other than religion. Actually, in my house religion is very rarely a topic. It usually only comes up in the event that somebody mentions it to my children at school or my in laws make mention of it. But day to day? We've got much more important stuff to talk about than sky fairies. ;)

Oh, and your last statement was wrong. Without religion everybody would be atheist. The only thing that makes somebody an atheist is a lack of belief in supernatural deities. So if everybody slapped their foreheads tomorrow morning and said "Oh I get it! No gods, no gods at all exist!" then everybody would be atheists.

Actually, it used to be in the hundreds and now has dwindled down to the 70's. Let's speak worldwide and not old west days. By your implication, live in the beginning would have to been measured in months or days and it's taken us millions of years to get to the 70's. A chart from the beginning until now would show that. Sure there would be ups and downs but the general slope of the graph would show either a constant upward slope or a downward slope.

Actually, it used to be in the hundreds and now has dwindled down to the 70's. Let's speak worldwide and not old west days. By your implication, live in the beginning would have to been measured in months or days and it's taken us millions of years to get to the 70's. A chart from the beginning until now would show that. Sure there would be ups and downs but the general slope of the graph would show either a constant upward slope or a downward slope.Second law of thermaldynamics (never could spell that) says what?Yeah John. They would be totally lost without us...lol

I wasn't talking about "old west days". In ancient Rome, the average life span was around 35. Ancient Egyptians were lucky if they made it to 40.

I doubt that homo sapiens every saw a time where their lives were measured in months, as it would not have been an adequate amount of time for the species to have matured and reproduced. Chances are that by the time homo sapiens made their way on to the scene, they had inherited a somewhat extended life expectancy from their ancestors, much in the way that they inherited hair, or forward set eyes, etc.

Of course, evolution isn't the only card in play when it comes to life expectancy. There are countries today where the average life expectancy is under 35. Much like with ancient civilizations, lack of access to medical care, poor hygiene, lack of basic necessities, high infant mortality rates, etc, affect the life expectancy of today's humans. In more developed countries where hygiene, health care, and necessities are easily accessible, the life expectancy is longer.

A better example of evolution in humans would be lactose intolerance, and the way that Westerners have adapted to consuming milk beyond the weaning stage. Whereas those in the east are more likely to be lactose intolerant because consumption of milk beyond weaning is not the norm.

Actually, it used to be in the hundreds and now has dwindled down to the 70's. Let's speak worldwide and not old west days. By your implication, live in the beginning would have to been measured in months or days and it's taken us millions of years to get to the 70's. A chart from the beginning until now would show that. Sure there would be ups and downs but the general slope of the graph would show either a constant upward slope or a downward slope.Second law of thermaldynamics (never could spell that) says what?Yeah John. They would be totally lost without us...lol

Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies in a closed system. The Earth is powered by the sun. So entropy can increase or decrease.

I would consider the whole universe as a closed system if it was created or came into existence at the same time. If, by science, the big bang happened, then everything would be subject to the same laws since everything originated from one place. If one law applies then logically it would apply everywhere according to mathmatics. If it varies, then how can we trust red shifts, etc. what about the effects of gravity on light as it passes through the billions of galaxies before it reaches us? How do you measure the effects without the same law appling to the whole universe? The second law is a very simple law, which science gave us, btw. But evolution goes completely against it. Even science says that after 8 days a human begins to die from that point on. We get older, but degrade at the same time. May be why God told them to circumcise the children on the eighth day. The day when a human is the strongest in the immune system. But I know there are scientists that even argue against that. There will always be people who disagree with others of the same convictions. Always have been and always will be. Scientists argue with each other just as much as theologians do amongst themselves. Variables are a law not set in stone and cannot be contained within a set of laws, else they would be a law. A variable cannot be calculated. It can be assumed within resonable boundaries, but cannot be counted as an absolute.

xME: your second comment isn't quite right. The universe is a closed system, but the systems within it are open (to the universe).

The end of the universe will be a very cold, dark and depressing place (either that, or we get the "big crunch"). We have billions of years of entropy to get through before that happens though, and in that time evolution will continue on earth for as long as the sun powers it.

I've read all the posts for this thread, and some I find nonsense, some amusing, but all interesting. You all seem to be intelligent, well read individuals. <for the most part> So, now I have a question, and I really want to know how you believe. My question is... Do you believe there is life or lifeforms in our universe with as much or more intelligence than we possess? I believe yes, there is.

So you're saying that the same laws that apply to us "here" don't necessarily apply to other galaxies? If that is the case then we cannot trust our theories on what we have assumed about galaxies in the outer regions of what we are able to scan or photo, or whatever. 2+2 may not = 4 somewhere else?

Either the universe is a closed system or it is not. I never said the universe is open, unless you were speaking of someone else. I believe it is closed. Where did I admit it was NOT a closed system??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.